4.7 Article

Phytotoxicity and chelating capacity of spent coffee grounds: Two contrasting faces in its use as soil organic amendment

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 717, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137247

Keywords

Spent coffee grounds; Micronutrients; Polyphenols; Organic amendment; Vennicompost; Biochar

Funding

  1. Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [AGL2014-53895-R]
  2. European Regional Development Fund (FEDER)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Spent coffee grounds (SCG) area bioresidue generated in large amounts worldwide, which could be employed as either fresh or transformed organic soil amendment, by means of different treatments in order to improve its agronomic qualities. An in vitro experiment was conducted in order to evaluate the effect of using different bioamendments derived from spent coffee grounds (SCG) on biomass and Zn. Cu and Fe content of lettuces. Application of 7.5% (w/w) fresh SCG, vermicompost, compost, biochars (at 270 and 400 degrees C; pyrolysis), SCG washed with ethanol and water, and hydrolysed SCG was carried out in an agricultural soil (Cambic sol). In order to compare with conventional agriculture, the addition of NPK fertilizer was also assessed. Only vermicompost and biochar at 400 degrees C overcome the growth limitation of SCG. However, these treatments diminished Zn. Cu and Fe concentrations in lettuce probably due to the destruction (microbial degradation/thermal treatment) of natural chelating components (polyphenols). Increase in mineral content was observed in those treatments that did not completely eliminate polyphenols. NPK fertilizer gave rise to lettuces with higher biomass but lower micronutrients content. The results lead us to the possible solution for the use of SCG as organic amendment by vermicomposting and biocharization in order to eliminate toxicity. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available